June 2016

Thursday, June 30, 2016

To date, all of the writing I have done about jiu jitsu has been limited to this blog (which is fine, of course). However, I was recently asked to write a commissioned piece for BJJ Eastern Europe by Gile Huni (the owner of the site) that covered a topic that is near and dear to my personal and professional heart--namely, the role that humility can and should play in jiu jitsu. You can read the piece here. In it, I discuss some of the research I have been doing on humility during the past few years and how it relates to the problem of ego in jiu jitsu. The moral of the story: Don't be that guy!

For those of you who might be interested, you can read more about our work in the following article entitled, "Some Varieties of Humility Worth Wanting" (which is in press at The Journal of Moral Philosophy). Since the paper will be stuck behind a paywall for most of the readers of this blog, I have attached a copy below. If this piques your curiosity, you can email me and I can send you some of our other forthcoming papers and chapters about the nature and value of humility. For now, thanks again to Gile for the opportunity to post on his site. I hope to be writing more for him soon!

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

The history of jiu jitsu is a history of unfavorably looked upon techniques--especially where some of the Gracies are concerned. While Grand Master Helio Gracie showed both wrist locks and even heel hooks, these sorts of techniques have often been frowned upon (if not outright forbidden or circumscribed) at gyms and tournaments around the world. Then there was the turtle guard, 50/50 guard, the berimbolo, etc.--all techniques that have been criticized for their lack of "real world" applicability. While it turns out the 50/50 guard has passed the "street credibility" test when Ryan Hall used it on The Ultimate Fighter to submit two MMA fighters in short order, there is a new hated position/technique in town--the so-called "Donkey Guard" that is being developed by Jeff Glover.

For some videos of Glover using the position in matches and for a brief description of the position, see here and here. At times, the position seems as much a taunt as anything else--which some view as unsportsmanlike (but more on that below). Consequently, it has been met with hostility by some competitors (see here). So, now it has been banned from Gracie tournaments. Here is the justification offered by Rose Gracie (see here):

No Donkey Guard: This is just silly! I can’t even consider this a guard. If you were to do this in a real fight you would get kicked in the groin. So for this reason, this technique will not be allowed at Gracie Tournaments.

So-called "Butt scooting" is banned for the same reason--namely, it's alleged non-applicability in the streets (although it has been used in MMA--but let's leave that inconvenient fact aside for now).

For present purposes, I want to ask whether the "street standard" is a good standard and whether it is being applied consistently. In regards to the first question, I don't see why the street cred argument has any teeth in sport jiu jitsu. For instance, unless you are constantly using punch protection from closed guard, in the street you would be getting punched in the face or headbutted. The same goes for bottom half-guard. If MMA has taught us anything, it's that bottom half guard is markedly more dangerous when your opponent can drop punches or elbows (especially when you don't have a kimono to grip into to eliminate space). Yet, no one is suggesting that these foundational guards be banned despite the peril they potentially pose in the streets (at least as they are commonly used in tournaments). So, why ban the donkey guard? Because someone will kick you in the groin of course! Just look, it already happened in a tournament (see above)!

But wait a second, just because someone could kick a donkey guard player in the groin under competition rules, that doesn't mean the position doesn't work in the street. Indeed, the position is really just a modified entry into the most dangerous take down in the game--namely, the scissor take down (or kani basami). This take down is so dangerous that it is banned at many tournaments despite the fact that it makes for a beautiful take down which sets you up for heel hooks and inverted heel hooks. So, while the donkey guard may look silly, on the surface, it turns out the only reason it isn't "street certified" is because the position has been neutered by competition organizers. If Glover and other donkey guard players were allowed to scissor sweep from the position, it would be a very dangerous position indeed. In short, the donkey guard could have plenty of street cred--since tournament rules don't apply in the real world. Either way, the street credibility standard is not appropriate for competition jiu jitsu since it conflates sport jiu jitsu with self-defense oriented jiu jitsu--which each have their own unique situations, goals, versions of techniques, etc.

The second question I raised above is whether the "street cred" rule is applied consistently. Here the answer is an obvious and resounding "No"! For instance, you are allowed to turtle--yet, if you turtle up in the street you're going to get punched in the face repeatedly. Yet Telles' turtle guard (which I use and love, I should add) is permitted while the donkey guard is not. This, despite the fact that the former lacks street credibility while the former has it (once the artificiality of BJJ tournament rules are removed). So, why ban the donkey guard?

The main reason, if I am allowed to speculate, is that (a) Jeff Glover is known for clowning around during matches (which some deem as disrespectful), and (b) Jeff Glover has used the donkey guard as more of a taunt than a proper position (at least in the beginning). It's not that it fails the street cred test. It's that it's been used by Glover (at least occasionally) in a way than many deem unsportsmanlike. To be honest, when I saw him doing it against Yoshida for the first time, I was a bit put off for this very reason. It didn't seem he was giving Yoshida the respect he deserves.

Yet, here again, there's a sense in which if I turtle and simply give up access to my back, I am not respecting my opponent's skills very much. But both turtling up and the turtle guard are allowed. Consistency ought to be the key here. What's good for the Brazilian turtle guard goose ought to be good for the American donkey guard gander. Or so it seems to me! In my eyes, the donkey guard should be permitted. But if a competitor uses it to taunt more than take down, then he (or she) should be DQ'd for unsportsmanlike conduct. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the donkey guard. But because it can (and has been) used in ways that can reasonably be interpreted by some as disrespectful (even if others would view it as merely "playful").

Monday, June 27, 2016

As someone who works in both philosophy and psychology, I have often been puzzled by how little data there seem to be on jiu jitsu practitioners. This is all the more puzzling given how many hotly contested debates depend on factual claims for which there is only anecdotal (if any) support. Since I spend a lot of time in my day job running online studies, I figured it would be a piece of cake to put together a survey for jiu jitsukas. The survey has three parts: First, I collect some basic, background demographic data. Second, I collect some data concerning people's specific jiu jitsu journeys. Finally, I collect some data that pertains to people's purchasing habits when it come to gear and apparel as well as their interest (or lack thereof) in BJJ-related websites, blogs, podcasts, etc. The more people I can get to take the time to fill out this survey the better. I can't compensate you, alas. But hopefully, you'll be willing and able to help just to satisfy your own curiosity. For instance, haven't you ever wondered what the most frequently injuries are or how long it usually takes people to progress through the ranks? Once the traffic dies down, I will close the survey and start compiling the data--which I will publish here on The Grumpy Grappler (and on R/BJJ). So, please take the survey and please help me spread the word as well. With everyone's help, we can start relying on facts rather than intuitions when it comes to the experiences and preferences of jiu jitsukas! That said, here is the link for the survey:

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know! Thanks again! Hopefully, this fall I will run a proper scientific study on the psychology of jiu jitsukas. But first, this informal survey will have to do.

p.s. You need not answer any particular questions if you don't want to + your answers are completely anonymous. So, don't let those be reasons not to participate. The more participants the better!

Saturday, June 25, 2016

I have been tinkering around with a similar submission--albeit with a different set up--for the past few months. Until recently, I didn't know what the finish was called and I was winging it when it came to the details. Yet, I nevertheless had some luck with the technique. So, upon digging around the interwebs a bit deeper, I found a very cool leg lock that isn't as hard to enter into as one might assume. It's called the cloverleaf, the Texas cloverleaf, the double Achilles lock, etc. At a later date, I will discuss some of the various ways I have experimented with when it comes to setting up the "laced leg" position that serves as the starting point for the technique. For now, here are a few videos which show different set ups, details, finishes, etc. As always, watch, learn, and go train!

Friday, June 24, 2016

In a follow up post, I will focus on videos that show the bicep crushes/slices from a wide variety of positions. But first, I thought I would cull some videos from the interwebs that contain some nice details on bicep crushes/slices. As you can see below, these techniques are available from a number of positions as well. As always, the devil is in the details. So, watch, learn, and go train!

Thursday, June 23, 2016

In a recent post, I discussed the inherently social and contrastive nature of promotions in jiu jitsu. I think that anyone who denies that promotions be looked at in this way is unmoored from reality (or perhaps they simply fail to understand some important features of human psychology—e.g., how keenly attentive we are to how our peers rank in relation to ourselves). Given the ineliminably social and contrastive nature of promotions, they are to be taken very seriously indeed by instructors (which lamentably is often not the case). Unless and until an instructor is prepared to provide guidance to those who are not promoted—especially in the wake of others having been promoted—he should hold off on giving promotions.

This is not just a matter of managing the sour grapes among those who are held back, it’s a function of how to properly and adequately do one’s job as an instructor—i.e., as an educator. The key is the ability to provide actionable guidance to those who need and/or ask for it. It’s a dereliction of duty to leave it to students to figure things out on their own. If the black belt really is like the Ph.D. of belts (or perhaps even a post-doctoral fellowship), then by the time someone achieves the rank, they should have a pretty firm sense of the standards they will use in determining the rank of their students (and they should be able to articulate these expectations). It’s not enough to simply “wing it”—or so it seems to me as a professional ethicist and educator.

So, what kinds of standards might one adopt? Here is a long list of candidates for consideration:

Attitude: Does the student have the right attitude? What counts? Is the student selfish? Does he roll with ego? Does he care just about himself (or does he work equally hard to improve others)? Does he do what the coaches tell him to do? Does he happily (vs. begrudgingly) help when asked? Is he respectful to visitors (whether they are white belts or black belts)?

Knowledge: Lots of issues are packed into this category. Has the student mastered a certain set of fixed or formal techniques for each belt level? Has the student mastered the salient part of the self-defense curriculum? Has the student mastered stand-up techniques (from both wrestling and judo)? Has the student been familiarized with training in the gi and without the gi?

Competition: Has the student competed? If so, how did he do against his peers from different academies? If the student has competed several times, has he made progress between each competition? Is the student coachable—that is, at tournaments, does the student listen to the coach’s instructions?

Teaching: How much experience teaching does the student have? How good is he at breaking down techniques and conveying them clearly to less experienced students? How happy is he to teach—does he view it as an honor and a privilege or a burden?

Rolling: How well does the student roll with students of his same rank. How does he roll with students who hold a lower (or a higher) rank? Does the student roll respectfully (with lower and upper belts alike)? Is the student always trying to “win” rolls or is he more focused simply on trying to improve?

Contributions to Gym: Does the student help with the gym—e.g., does he manage the social media? Does the student volunteer when he's needed—e.g., to help give a public demonstration to the local community? Does the student help clean the mats and tidy up the gym without being asked to do so?

Background Experience: Does the student have a background in a relevant martial art—e.g., wrestling, judo, akido, or even stand up arts such as karate? Is the student able to incorporate this past experience into his approach to jiu jitsu? Is the student’s past experience an impediment to his success in jiu jitsu (as is often the case with wrestlers—at least in my experience)?

Ambassadorship: Is the student a good ambassador for the gym? Does he help portray the gym in a favorable light? Does the student recruit people to try jiu jitsu? Does the student help the gym grow? Does the student’s attitude turn off new students who are just trying jiu jitsu for the first time?

These are just some of the factors that come to mind. I think each of these factors ought to play a role—but I am admittedly just a lowly four-stripe purple belt, so what do I know? As an ethicist and moral psychologist by training and trade, however, I can say that some standards are bound to create inequity, unfairness, double-standards, and frustrations.

For instance, some instructors I have known and trained with insist that their only criterion is how a particular students “feels” when rolling. This is bad, pedagogically speaking, for multiple reasons. First, feelings are too subjective and too susceptible to biases such as favoritism, etc. Second, if one student rolls harder than he should while another student rolls more respectfully, the former student may “feel” better—but this is just an artifact of how hard the students chose to roll. Had the latter student rolled just as hard as the former student, he, too, would have “felt” better. Third, relying on this as one’s sole criterion also makes the entire promotion system opaque and mysterious. After all, how a student “feels” to one instructor may differ from how he “feels” to another instructor—even if these instructors happen to be at the very same academy. Fourth, if “feeling while rolling” is going to be the only criterion, then it is important that the rolls not always occur from the knees—which is very artificial as far as it goes. While one student may seem like a world beater from the knees, he may be completely lost on the feet. As such, if these students were forced to start from the feet, they may “feel” far less technical or good when rolling.

Needless to say, I think the “feeling” criterion is not very reliable—especially when it is the sole criterion. When coupled with some of the criteria I mentioned above, it both could and should play a role. But it’s not a good measure in and of itself.

That said, notice I haven’t even gotten into what the different belts are supposed to mean (far less what individual stripes are supposed to mean). Here, too, there is a wide variety of opinions both within schools and between schools. In general, I think most people would agree with the following categorization: (a) Beginner belts: White and Blue, (b) Intermediate belt: Purple, and (c) Expert belts: Brown and black. But the standards for distinguishing between beginners, intermediates, and experts once again vary widely—which only adds to students’ frustrations (especially students like me who have moved around and belonged to a number of schools, each of which had its own standards and conventions).

This is partly why I think schools should have a formal curriculum—which can serve as a semi-objective measure. But that is a post for another day! For now, I just wanted to get a conversation going about what should (and what should not) count when it comes to promotions. Thoughts?

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

As a self-professed addict of BJJ-related history and philosophy and an academic philosopher (who works on moral psychology as part of my day job), it is rare that my dual identities coincide. For while there are plenty of people who work on the philosophy of martial arts, this research rarely focuses on the martial arts I prefer. Then, one of our guest bloggers--Daniel Mosely--sent me the following gem: Nicholas Dixon, "A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts," Public Affairs Quarterly, 29:4 (2015), pp. 365-384. I have attached a copy of the article to the bottom of this post for those who can't get past the paywall.

Since this is just a blog post, I won't have time to write a thorough criticism here. But I nevertheless do think that that the argument offered by Dixon merits a response if for no other reason than if his argument were successful--and luckily, it is not--then it would also stand in as a moral objection to other combat "sports"—which is something he readily admits. Indeed, he has argued that blows to the head shouldn’t be allowed in boxing owing to the negative, long-term health affects (much the same as the data on concussions in football and soccer problematize both sports). In this respect, Dixon thinks there is a paternalistic argument to be made for forbidding certain types of contact sports. But that is not the argument he mounts against MMA. Rather than focusing on the potential negative effects on the participants or society at large, he focuses on the inherent morality (or immorality as the case may be) of MMA and other combat sports.

In order to be in the position to assess his argument, some terminological machinery must be highlighted and explained. For starters, there is an important distinction in moral philosophy between practices that are inherently or intrinsically valuable (or disvaluable) and practices that are merely instrumentally or extrinsically valuable (or disvaluable). Take the value of money. In and of itself, money has no inherent value. It is merely instrumentally valuable--that is, it is only valuable because of what you're able to do with it. If someone were already worth $100 billion and you asked them why they wanted more money, this would be a sensible question. Contrast this with happiness--which is often taken to be valuable "in itself." If someone told you they wanted to be happy, it wouldn't make sense to ask why. This is because happiness, unlike money, is inherently or intrinsically valuable--that is, its value doesn't depend on something else. Rather, the value of happiness is internal to happiness itself. Arguably, the same can be said about health. If someone told you they wanted to be healthier, it wouldn't make much sense to ask why. Health is the sort of thing we value for its own take--not for the sake of something else.

I say all this as a preliminary way of highlighting how radical Dixon's claim about MMA is. In short, he thinks that MMA is intrinsically (and not merely instrumentally) immoral. It's not that MMA brings about morally unsavory or problematic consequences for participants, the audience, or society more generally (although those might be additional reasons to prohibit MMA on moral grounds). Rather, the practice of MMA is morally suspicious regardless of the consequences. Why? In short: The goal of the sport is to intentionally cause physical harm to another person (as either an end itself or as a means to an end such as winning). Because it is allegedly inherently wrong to have these kinds of harmful intentions and perform these kind of harmful actions on purpose (unless one has an excuse such as duress or justification such as self-defense), MMA is deemed to be intrinsically immoral.

It is the alleged viciousness of the participants in MMA (and other combat sports) that raises the moral red flag. Here is a representative remark from philosopher Paul Davis talking about boxing (which applies to MMA as well):

[T]he face of at least one boxer will suggest an attitude of unbridled ferocity toward the opponent. A snapshot of the face of a fighter on the offensive is liable to reveal an attitude toward the opponent that, in any other context might be fairly described as vicious.

It is the sometimes unbridled ferocity with which MMA fighters go after one another that morally problematizes the practice according to Dixon. The charge here is that MMA fighters treat one as mere objects to be harmed in the name of victory—that is, one’s opponent is reduced to a violent and sometimes brutal means to an end (winning the fight). Here are other instances where it is normally deemed inappropriate to reduce someone else to a mere means to one’s ends:

A man treats a woman as a sex object if he regards her merely as a source of sexual gratification, without regard for her own desires or interests. Muggers treat their victims solely as objects from which to obtain money. Sycophants treat their rich acquaintances in the same way, albeit in a slightly more subtle manner. Ruthless politicians treat rivals and colleagues alike merely as stepping stones—objects to be manipulated—to their own accumulation of power.

But is this analogy apt? As we will see below, I don’t think that it is. But setting that aside for now, I simply want to point out that if sound, Dixon's argument would also call into moral question a number of other martial arts and combat sports as well such as Muay Thai fighting, boxing, and kick boxing (to name just a few). Other sports that involve harm and danger—e.g., hockey or football—may get a pass because the harming of others is not intrinsic to the practice or necessary for victory. The same could be said for wrestling and sport jiu jitsu. While people do occasionally get hurt, hurting them is not necessary to win and isn’t the goal of the practice. Some combat sports, on the other hand, are allegedly intrinsically violent and vicious and hence intrinsically immoral.

But the question of the day is: Should we accept Dixon's argument? I think the answer is "No," and I think that the most important issue is going to be consent.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Chris Haueter (see here and here) is a member of the infamous "Dirty Dozen," a master technician and teacher, an artist, and a philosopher (by temperament if not by training). Indeed, in my humble opinion, he is the most interesting (and important) American-born black belt. Whenever I read (or watch) an interview of his (or just a video of him waxing philosophical about jiu jitsu--see below), I am always impressed with how many nuggets of wisdom he has accumulated during his own jiu jitsu journey. He exemplifies and embodies what it means to live the "jiu jitsu lifestyle"--running a long-standing gym aptly called "The Garage," travelling the world competing and spreading the gospel of grappling. Consequently, I was delighted when a nearly 30 minute video was posted of a recent seminar he gave at Veterans Jiu Jitsu (see below). Some of the concepts he shares in this video are profound (at least to me). The way he chains between different grips and submissions is poetry in motion. Hopefully, in the weeks and months ahead, I will have the chance to slowly start working on the techniques he shows. In the meantime, I thought I would write a post that included links to articles and videos about his life, work, and philosophy. He is a true gem. So, read, watch, and go train! As Haueter famously pointed out, "it's not who's good, it's who's left." So, keep training, keep learning, and when you're ready, pass your knowledge along to someone else!

p.s. If you want to learn more about Haueter's seminars, privates, and clinics, see his FB page here. That said, the videos are below the fold:

Saturday, June 18, 2016

A rare confession: I was a fan of pro wrestling as a kid (or wrasslin' as they say down here in the south where I grew up). Much later in life, I became interested in the historical relationship between professional wrestling and early vale tudo or no holds barred matches involving catch wrestlers, judokas, jiu jitsukas, and other martial artists all trying to prove that their art was the best for real hand-to-hand combat. It turns out that a lot of these early matches were rigged, fixed, or thrown--including several matches by famous Gracies if Roberto Pedreira is to be the believed (see here). In short, professional wrestling has dishonest roots--but these roots are grounded in combat nonetheless. It was only later that matches in professional wrestling were viewed by the audience as purely fictive sports entertainment. But given that I was a fan of the Hulk Hogans, Ric Flairs, and Iron Shieks of the world once upon a very long time ago, I still have a lingering soft spot in my heart for techniques one can realistically do in submission grappling that are also popular "moves" in professional wrestling. A case in point: The Boston Crab (and the Half Boston Crab). So, I wanted to find some videos that might be useful. First up, Josh Barnett shows a Boston Crab from inside the triangle! Then, there are videos on how to use the Boston Crab (or Half Boston Crab) from other positions--e.g., inside the closed guard, from the blast double take down, when you bridge escape from mount, when you're standing in your O's open guard, when your O tries to roll out of a modified saddle/honey hole, etc. So, watch, learn, and go train!

Friday, June 17, 2016

If you're like me, you have often wanted to go to a jiu jitsu camp--especially the ones held in exotic places! However, these camps are often very expensive (in excess of $1000). That's not to say they're not worth it, it's just to say that I can't afford it. So, you can imagine my excitement when I realized that the legendary Mario Sperry was hosting a three day Master's Camp in Las Vegas that is only $479 for five hours of training per day at the Las Vegas gym of Wanderlei Silva (yet another legend). Given how inexpensive hotels (and even flights) are in Las Vegas, I am going to try to make this camp if I can find a friend/training partner to split the cost of the hotel, car rental, etc.! But since it seems like a very cool idea--namely, having a camp particularly for old farts leading up to the Masters Worlds--I contacted the people running the camp and offered to run an ad for Jiu Jitsu Experience for free. They are not paying me to run the ad and they are not giving me any discounts for attending. I am posting this simply because I am a nerd about jiu jitsu history and hence love Ze Mario Sperry (see here for some Sperry hilarity)! Hopefully, I will see some readers at the camp!

Sunday, June 12, 2016

I started The Grumpy Grappler three years ago come this August. During this time, I have not posted as regularly as I had intended, but a number of things have come up along the way--a marriage, buying a new house, going up for tenure, a neck surgery, and life more generally. There have nevertheless been nearly 200 posts over the years, and the blog has received more than 70,000 unique page views. Indeed, when my posts make their way to R/BJJ, I can easily receive 1.000+ views in a day or two. That said, now I am finally in a good place to start to posting more frequently (having just received tenure a few months ago!). So, I wanted to line up some affiliate partners for the blog. The first company that stepped up is Yolo BJJ (see their banner on the right hand of the page). They seem to have some nice gear. I plan to order a rash guard and a gi soon. I will keep you posted once I have some products to test! In the meantime, please feel free to use the link to the right if you want to check out any of their gear. Thanks in advance to the folks at Yolo BJJ for their support. Hopefully, I will line up more partners for the blog in the weeks and months ahead.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

Like most primates, humans are hierarchical creatures. An acute attunement to the social order—including both where oneself and others stand within this order—is hardwired into our DNA. Indeed, where we stand in relation to others can even affect our health (see here for more). It’s why we like rankings, etc. It’s also why we are constantly striving to get ahead of others while ensuring we don’t get surpassed. Our (perhaps lamentable) preference for hierarchies (and the propensity for violence and dominance that goes along with it) has obviously served our evolutionary ancestors well. While these tendencies have arguably become maladaptive in the contemporary world, for present purposes, I am not going to pass judgment on these natural preferences and our social psychology. Rather, I want to consider a basic practice in contemporary jiu jitsu that is thoroughly hierarchical and predictably creates tension within gyms—namely, promotions (whether stripes or belts).

For starters, what do the belts mean? For instance, what’s the difference between a purple belt and a brown belt (or a brown belt and a black belt)? Different practitioners will give different answers to this question. For some, competition is the key to promotion. For others, it’s teaching (at least when it comes to the upper belts). Yet still for others, it is the mastery of technique or the breadth of one’s knowledge set (or both). Given this diversity of opinion and given the absence of uniform standards, I am going to set this thorny question aside for the present post. I want to focus instead on promotions *within* academies (rather than differing opinions about the belt standards *between* academies).

In my experience—which ranges over ten years, five states, and multiple gyms—promotions are often treated by instructors as if they occur in a social vacuum. On this atomistic approach, promotions are individualized—that is, they pertain only to the individuals being promoted. As such, if A gets promoted, the decision to promote was based solely on A’s skills, knowledge, experience, progress, etc. Moreover, it is no one else’s business why A got promoted (rather than B or C). The promotion is solely between the instructor and the student. Indeed, for instructors who adopt this attitude and approach, if a student merely asks for a clarification for why A got promoted while he did not, this question alone is taken as a sign of pettiness, immaturity, narcissism, egoism, etc. On the one hand, such a student will invariably be told to focus on himself and stop worrying about others. On the other hand, the question itself—viewed as an inappropriate act of defiance—will often be used as a reason for holding back or punishing the student who dares challenge the instructor’s decision. On this view, the instructor knows best and that’s the end of the matter.

I am here to argue that this atomistic approach to promotions is misguided and the repercussions of adopting this approach will end up generating inequity in the gym and feelings of frustration and unfairness among the students. So, why do I think the atomistic approach is misguided? Because, as a matter of fact, promotions do not occur in a vacuum and they are not merely individualistic. Rather, promotions are inherently social—that is, they occur within a collective or community setting such as a gym. Moreover, they are also often public—that is, some students are promoted (and others not) in front of the class. In this way, promotions are not just individualized assessments, *they send social signals*—that is, they have social meaning.

Here is what I have in mind. If students A and B started at roughly the same time and A is being promoted much faster than B, it is completely reasonable for B to wonder why he is sliding down the hierarchy while A is moving up. After all, the promotion is, by its very nature, *contrastive* in these contexts—that is, the promotion of B says something *both* about what B is doing right and what A is doing wrong (or at least not doing right). This contrastive element is *inescapable* in social settings like gyms. One student can’t be promoted and others not without signaling something to both those who were promoted and those who were not. Moreover, it is precisely the contrastive nature of promotions that leave students feeling like they’ve been treated unfairly, that favoritism is playing a role, etc.—especially when it’s unclear what explains the instructor’s decision to promote one student but not another.

Now, a traditionalist is going to insist: “But the instructor knows best! It’s not the student’s position to question the instructor’s decision.” In my eyes, as an educator, this is complete and utter rubbish. I have been teaching college for the past 15 years. I try to grade fairly. But sometimes, a student wants to understand why he received a C for his essay exam while a friend of his in the class received a B. Given that the student isn’t in the position to figure this out on his own, it makes perfect sense for him to ask me for an explanation. I would be derelict of my pedagogical duties if I punished the student for asking or held it against him on future exams. Instead, I should be able to explain in detail why the one student got a C and the other a B. After all, I assigned the grade for a reason. And any teacher worth her salt ought to be able to clearly articulate and explain these reasons to students who don’t understand the differential grades that were assigned. Patiently and openly answering these questions is part of my job as an educator.

Imagine what kind of professor I would be if I treated my inquiring students—who are often genuinely interested in figuring out what they’re doing wrong and others are doing right—in the way that students are often dismissively treated in jiu jitsu. It would be a scandal and perhaps even a fireable offense (at least for those who don’t have tenure). Yet, this response is completely commonplace in jiu jitsu. It’s a negligent, misguided, and arrogant approach. Small wonder that students are often upset and frustrated when they can’t figure out how and why others are being promoted while they are not.

Let’s return to my classroom for illustration. If I assign a student a grade, I damn well better be able to justify and explain the grade to the student (and to any other students who feel they were graded unfairly or unjustly). Saying, “just keep at it,” or “keep doing what you’re doing,” or “how dare you” are worse than useless—they are counter-productive and provide students with no guidance whatsoever. And if it’s not appropriate for a college class room—where grades are usually private—it’s certainly not appropriate in the social and often competitive environment of hierarchical gyms.

So, if I am a student in a gym and I am getting promoted at half the rate of my peers and (a) I can’t figure out why, (b) it seems to me that both merit and fairness require that I be promoted at the same rate, and (c) asking for an explanation is dismissed, held against me, or met with completely unhelpful advice, I will reasonably feel the sting of inequity and unfairness. Maybe I keep my head down, keep my mouth shut, and continue fumbling around in the dark until I hit upon the mysterious path that I should apparently be on. Or maybe, at some point, I will decide enough is enough. Even monkeys can tell when others are being given favorable treatment for doing the same damn thing (see below).

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

In professional wrestling as in mixed martial arts, some athletes are best suited for the "heel role." When I started this blog, I was feeling a bit heelish--hence, the original name: "The Grumpy Grappler." Years later, I lost my senses and decided to adopt a more neutral and positive attitude and moniker. So, I changed the name to The Jiu Jitsu Journey. In light of some recent developments in my own life (stay tuned for details), I have decided that now is the time to get back to my grumbly and cantankerous roots. So, I have decided to once again be The Grumpy Grappler. Enjoy the show!

Friday, June 03, 2016

A few days ago, I posted the first in what will hopefully be a new series of posts entitled: Get a Leg Up. Each post will come in multiple parts--including competition videos, interviews, instructional videos, etc. For the inaugural post, I chose Eddie "The Wolverine" Cummings as the grappler of focus. See the link above for a bunch of competition footage of Cummings plying his leg lock trade. In this post, I want to post a bunch of videos that involve interviews of Cummings, analyses of his matches, or instances where he's explaining his overall leg lock system as well as particular techniques. Hopefully, this pair of posts gives you some new insight into one of the top leg lockers in grappling today. Stay tuned for more similar treatment of other leg lock experts in the weeks and months ahead!